4 ms·

So at what point would this become a net positive to society? Let's say it stops an average of 5 mass shootings a year and 200 domestic homicides, will the cos

So at what point would this become a net positive to society? Let's say it stops an average of 5 mass shootings a year and 200 domestic homicides, will the cost of lost privacy be worth it? I don't like the idea of systems like this, but in places like the United States where gun control and mental health treatment are off the table I don't see many other options.

Griffinsauce 7y ago
Your last point is completely invalid IMO. Its doing a bad hack while not fixing the structural problems. As they say in Dutch: mopping with the tap open... Taking good options off the table for irrational reasons does not make the next best options any better.
- diveanon 7y ago
  Nobody is happy with a good compromise. Pitch me on how you would solve those issues in the current political climate?
PostOnce 7y ago
What if we move the TSA into the streets and have mandatory inspections of every home every day? We could mandate reporting on neighbors. We, too, could become a shining example of what happens when the state is primarily concerned with the welfare of its citizens, just like North Korea.
- diveanon 7y ago
  You're missing the point. Americans already value physical privacy over digital. Nobody is taking their guns, just their privacy, which they gave away long ago for likes. Use the idiocy of masses for some good and maybe we can solve some real problems instead of dancing around the same old issues. Net neutrality and digital privacy are dead, and most western countries are well on their way to becoming surveillance states. Time to start looking towards the future and being pragmatic about the flaws we have built into our societies.
  - PostOnce 7y ago
    Well the point was that an utter absence of privacy, a world where privacy was illegal, even, would theoretically catch A LOT of bad people, but the losses far, FAR outweigh the gains -- think of what living in a fearful society would be like. Net neutrality and digital privacy aren't remotely dead, for one thing because we don't live in a Universal Jurisdiction. The EFF exists for a reason and they're not trying to revive a corpse; they're trying to bring a slightly unhealthy body back to full strength. It's not hard to imagine how this whole thing could go incredibly awry, and lead to abuses of power previously seen only in dystopian fiction.
    - diveanon 7y ago
      "the losses far, FAR outweigh the gains" I disagree and think the topic should be open to public debate. Would I trust the US or China to implement a system like this fairly? No. However, in a country with a functional and impartial judicial system I think it has the potential to save many lives and redefine the criminal justice system into something that focuses on preventing crime and treating mental illness instead of just prosecuting it. I don't place a lot of value on your existential fear of abuse, just as I don't place a lot of value on 2nd amendment supporters existential fear of tyranny. "Muh data" sounds just as hollow as "muh guns" when weighed against the very real threats faced by innocent people every day.
      - PostOnce 7y ago
        So your policy is in effect "Let us oppress the many to protect the few." Alright, then.
        diveanon 7y ago
        As I said in my previous comment, it's only oppression when implemented as such. Technology is a tool, the one who wields it bears the moral responsibility to use it correctly. Address the root causes of systemic oppression in your country and systems like this have potential to do tremendous good.
0xffff2 7y ago
The number of crimes prevented is an utterly irrelevant metric. This becomes acceptable when police abuse of power is statistically nonexistent.
- diveanon 7y ago
  I disagree, and I am confident most other people would too. We are educated on the merits of maintaining digital privacy, but most of the world isn't. If you were able to prove that a system like this was saving thousands of lives a year I think it would have resounding support among the general public.

Griffinsauce 7y ago

Your last point is completely invalid IMO. Its doing a bad hack while not fixing the structural problems. As they say in Dutch: mopping with the tap open... Taking good options off the table for irrational reasons does not make the next best options any better.

diveanon 7y ago
Nobody is happy with a good compromise. Pitch me on how you would solve those issues in the current political climate?

PostOnce 7y ago

What if we move the TSA into the streets and have mandatory inspections of every home every day? We could mandate reporting on neighbors. We, too, could become a shining example of what happens when the state is primarily concerned with the welfare of its citizens, just like North Korea.

diveanon 7y ago
You're missing the point. Americans already value physical privacy over digital. Nobody is taking their guns, just their privacy, which they gave away long ago for likes. Use the idiocy of masses for some good and maybe we can solve some real problems instead of dancing around the same old issues. Net neutrality and digital privacy are dead, and most western countries are well on their way to becoming surveillance states. Time to start looking towards the future and being pragmatic about the flaws we have built into our societies.
- PostOnce 7y ago
  Well the point was that an utter absence of privacy, a world where privacy was illegal, even, would theoretically catch A LOT of bad people, but the losses far, FAR outweigh the gains -- think of what living in a fearful society would be like. Net neutrality and digital privacy aren't remotely dead, for one thing because we don't live in a Universal Jurisdiction. The EFF exists for a reason and they're not trying to revive a corpse; they're trying to bring a slightly unhealthy body back to full strength. It's not hard to imagine how this whole thing could go incredibly awry, and lead to abuses of power previously seen only in dystopian fiction.
  - diveanon 7y ago
    "the losses far, FAR outweigh the gains" I disagree and think the topic should be open to public debate. Would I trust the US or China to implement a system like this fairly? No. However, in a country with a functional and impartial judicial system I think it has the potential to save many lives and redefine the criminal justice system into something that focuses on preventing crime and treating mental illness instead of just prosecuting it. I don't place a lot of value on your existential fear of abuse, just as I don't place a lot of value on 2nd amendment supporters existential fear of tyranny. "Muh data" sounds just as hollow as "muh guns" when weighed against the very real threats faced by innocent people every day.
    - PostOnce 7y ago
      So your policy is in effect "Let us oppress the many to protect the few." Alright, then.
      - diveanon 7y ago
        As I said in my previous comment, it's only oppression when implemented as such. Technology is a tool, the one who wields it bears the moral responsibility to use it correctly. Address the root causes of systemic oppression in your country and systems like this have potential to do tremendous good.

0xffff2 7y ago

The number of crimes prevented is an utterly irrelevant metric. This becomes acceptable when police abuse of power is statistically nonexistent.

diveanon 7y ago
I disagree, and I am confident most other people would too. We are educated on the merits of maintaining digital privacy, but most of the world isn't. If you were able to prove that a system like this was saving thousands of lives a year I think it would have resounding support among the general public.